Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (104694)	6/21/2000 10:25:00 AM
From: D. Swiss	Respond to of 186894

Courtesy of Jay. re: MSFT Case Message 13913135 On the heels of their victory against Microsoft, the DOJ has announced they plan to "break-up" Tiger Woods. DOJ's lead prosecutor, Joel Klein, claims Tiger uses unfair golfing techniques which stifle his competition. Klein also stated that he doesn't necessarily want to "break-up" Tiger Woods; however, if they can't find some way to handicap him enough to allow other golfers to win then there would be no other choice. Under a break-up plan Tiger Woods would have to play half his tournaments as "Tiger" and the other half as "Woods". Although this may not give other golfers an advantage it would increase the tax revenue to the government. Tiger Woods said he plans to fight these charges. He has done nothing wrong except practice hard and play-to-win. Mark Fitzpatrick, anti-trust expert, said, "This "play-to-win" attitude is what started all Tiger's problems. If Tiger would just allow other's to win he would not have a monopoly on the golf course. He really brought this upon himself. He should have known the government couldn't allow this much golfing power in the hands of just one person. If I was Tiger, I would settle out of court. An appropriate remedy might be that he has to wear handcuffs when driving and stand on one foot while putting.

To: Road Walker who wrote (104694)	6/21/2000 10:40:00 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John, RE: I think that depends on if "earnings" are commingled with other Intel operating income. If so, I think you may be right, it makes Intel Capitol less than an independent operating division and more of a parking place for excess capitol. If the "earnings" are maintained within Intel Capitol to reinvest, I would feel more comfortable in valuing it as an independent VC division that should trade on a multiple of it's realized performance rather than it's assets. Actually, it would probably be valued much higher on the basis of it's unrealized gains rather than it's realized gains. Actually, I would argue just the opposite. I DO advocate valuing Intel Capital as an independent VC division. That's my point. Value the core business as a multiple of earnings, and value Intel Capital as a multiple of book.